Stakeholder Win-Win & WikiWinWin Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Stakeholder Win-Win & WikiWinWin Barry Boehm Di Wu August 31, 2009 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Outline Why negotiate requirements? What is WinWin negotiation? Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Outline Why negotiate requirements? What is WinWin negotiation? Doing WinWin negotiation - WikiWinWin 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Why Negotiate To produce requirements, can you just write down what the customer and user want in the requirements document? 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Why Negotiate To produce requirements, can you just put what the customer and user want in the requirements document? NO Software project involves many stakeholders Stakeholders have different needs/ expectations Many are in conflict Reconciling conflict is critical Spider web diagram Failures, costly rework if not done well The best place is in negotiation 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

The Model-Clash Spider Web: Master Net - Stakeholder value propositions (win conditions) 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Why Software Projects Challenged 365 respondents and represented 8380 projects. Data source: The Standish Group 1995 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

WinWin The win-win approach is a set of principles, practices, and tools, which enable a set of interdependent stakeholders to work out a mutually satisfactory (win-win) set of shared commitments. stakeholders WinWin win conditions agreements 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

WinWin Negotiation Model Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE WinWin Negotiation Model Win-Win Equilibrium: All win conditions covered by agreements No outstanding issues Win Condition: captures individual stakeholders’ desired objectives. Issue: captures conflicts between win conditions and their associated risks and uncertainties. Option: candidate solutions to resolve an issue. Agreement: captures shared commitment of stakeholders with regard to accepted win conditions or adopted options. 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Example Win condition: Issue: Option: Development cost should be zero, including cost of COTS. Issue: There is a possibility that no free COTS that will satisfy our desired capability. Option: The most suitable free COTS will be used No COTS use Pay up to $1,000 for COTS We find a suitable COTS, which costs $200 (Agreement) 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Win-lose Generally Becomes Lose-lose Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Win-lose Generally Becomes Lose-lose NOBODY wins in these situations 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Example Customer and Developers initially agreed on a “one second response time” at $30 million contract (Both customer and developers were winners) Developers later found out it would cost them $100 million to deliver the “one-second response time” (Developers went from winner to loser) Win-lose became lose-lose Developers could deliver defective product or cut corners Developers could go bankrupt if they spend $100 million In either case, customer couldn’t get what they negotiated for (Customer also loses) WinWin Developers and customer prototyped with users Found 4-second response OK 90% of the time Developers, customer and user renegotiated a “four-second response time” at $30 million (Developers, customer, and user are all winners) 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Achieving WinWin Software requirement negotiation Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Achieving WinWin Software requirement negotiation Often requires compromises Involves diverse but interdependent stakeholders Sometimes stakeholders don’t know what they want Stakeholders interests are often in conflict Requires a systematic approach (WinWin, Incremental Commitment) The course provides an opportunity to practice The WikiWinWin tool can help you with your negotiation 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

WikiWinWin Overview Roles Activities and Schedule Conclusion 12/9/2018 Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE WikiWinWin Overview Roles Activities and Schedule Conclusion 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Overview (1) WikiWinWin Tool and process Help success-critical stakeholders to jointly discover, elaborate, and negotiate win conditions. Achieving WinWin in rapid interdisciplinary requirements negotiation Multi-stakeholder Multi-discipline Globally distributed Rapid change Leverage Wiki technology and Shaper role 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Overview (2) 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Enabling Technology - Wiki Collective authorship in wiki: everyone is a viewer and editor 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Roles Two types contributions in using wiki Shaping (shaper) Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Roles Two types contributions in using wiki Contributing knowledge (knowledge contributor) Contribute domain knowledge, win conditions, negotiate agreements Everyone Shaping (shaper) Shaper role is a critical success factor 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Example of a Shaper: Howard* Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Example of a Shaper: Howard* 75-person software engineering group at a multi-billion dollar tech company “I spend up to two hours a day working on the wiki. Much of this time I reorganize other people’s materials, rename pages, create new links on the home page, or restructure the home page. Benefits aren’t to mean personally, but they help the group collaborate more effectively. They can find things easier” *Ann Majchrzak, USC Marshall School of Business, 2006 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Shaper in WikiWinWin (1) Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Shaper in WikiWinWin (1) Leader of negotiation Preparation tasks Lead negotiation meeting Summarize wiki discussions Help other stakeholders use the tool correctly Shape wiki content By integrating, organizing & rewriting contributions of others Primary helper (but everyone is editor, all are accountable for contributing in the wiki) 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Shaper in WikiWinWin (2) Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Shaper in WikiWinWin (2) Two shapers on each team Suggested assignment: one on-campus, one off-campus Off-campus shaper: lead shaper in using wiki On-campus shaper: facilitate negotiation meetings; co-shape with off-campus shaper Being shaper An interest in negotiations Ability to collaborate Contribute time and effort 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Example - Shaper Initial ideas from knowledge contributors Shaper organize them into a prospective win condition Stakeholders engage in a further discussion 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Activities and Schedule 9/3 – 9/4: WikiWinWin tutorial – I (on-campus students) 4 sessions; require to attend one; sign-up outside SAL 329 9/9: Teams formed; identify shapers 9/9 – 9/10: WikiWinWin tutorial – II (on-campus shapers) 2 sessions; require to attend one; sign-up outside SAL 329 Tutorials on-tape for DEN students 9/10- 9/11: Site visit; client interaction 9/16- 9/30: Initial WinWin negotiation Course provide 2 meeting sessions (90 minutes each) per team; at least 3 days apart; reserve after team formed Off-line negotiation 10/7: Initial WinWin report WinWin survey (individual assignment); client feedback Maintain WinWin equilibrium in wikiwinwin 11/18: Updated WinWin report 12/11: Individual critique; client evaluation 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

WikiWinWin Negotiation Activities Identify stakeholders Capture glossary Review negotiation topics Identify win conditions Converge on win conditions Identify issues, options, agreements Check WinWin equilibrium Prioritize agreements 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Previous Experience Milestone package quality shortfall vs. Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Previous Experience Milestone package quality shortfall vs. tool use by team Milestone package quality shortfall vs. tool use by shaper 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Conclusion Negotiate before defining requirements Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Conclusion Negotiate before defining requirements WinWin help streamline consensus-building Involve success critical stakeholders (SCS) If you leave some parties out, they will drag you to lose Do not over-negotiate Concurrently explore feasibility via prototyping, analysis Mutual learning is critical WikiWinWin tool is work-in-progress Contact: diwu@usc.edu 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Backups 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Identify Stakeholders Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Identify Stakeholders Objective: identify project’s SCS, mutual learning How: meeting, on-site visit, role-mapping Result: stakeholders contact info and roles, initial project context and meeting result 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Capture Glossary Objective: Define and share meaning of important terms How: Shapers/ others suggest definitions based on stakeholder statements; joint review Result: A glossary of terms with definitions and stakeholder statements showing usage of terms 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Review Negotiation Topics Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Review Negotiation Topics Objective: refine and customize the outline of negotiation topics How: Initial outline provided Result: Shared Outline that helps to stimulate your thinking, organize your win conditions, and serves as a completeness checklist for negotiations. 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Submit Win Conditions Objective: Share perspectives, views, background, expectations How: brainstorming, input ideas by category Result: A categorized set of stated stakeholders’ needs or desires 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Converge on Win Conditions Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Converge on Win Conditions Objective: Build and organize win conditions How: Structured discussion to converge on win conditions; Shaper/ others suggest final wording Result: List of clearly stated, unambiguous win conditions 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Comment on a Win Condition Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Add a new Win Condition Comment on a Win Condition 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Identify Issues, Options, Agreements Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Identify Issues, Options, Agreements Objective: Explore issues and options; negotiate agreements How: Develop/Review pass for issues, options, agreements Result: A WinWin Tree: Win conditions Issues Options Agreements 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

View Issues Add an Issue Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE View Issues Add an Issue 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Comment on an Issue View Options Add an Option Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Comment on an Issue View Options Add an Option 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Win Conditions, Issue, Options and Agreement Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Win Conditions, Issue, Options and Agreement 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Prioritize Agreements Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Prioritize Agreements Objective: Scope project, gain focus How: Client prioritize business importance; developers prioritize ease of implementation Result: Prioritized agreements 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Check WinWin Equilibrium Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Check WinWin Equilibrium Objective: Check if negotiation topics have been sufficiently covered How: Check Consistency, check Completeness Result: List of topics needing further attention 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE

Important with hurdles Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE Agreements are categorized in four categories Important with hurdles Forget them Low hanging fruits Maybe later 12/9/2018 ©USC-CSSE